Quinn must pay heed: Council speaker has to get with the majority on member salaries

The tide for reforming the City Council has turned in favor of the people of New York. A majority of members now supports barring self-dealing in pay raises. Let's put it to a vote.

Three years ago Sunday, the Council retroactively raised the salary of the 51 men and women who fill what are part-time offices to $112,500 a year, a 25% jump. A special commission supported the hike but also called for major changes in Council operations.

Advertisement

The recommendations included legislation mandating that pay hikes may take effect only prospectively and after an election. This is how Congress and the Legislature operate under the federal and state constitutions.

Speaker Christine Quinn and her colleagues thanked the panel, took the money and buried the rest of its ideas. But in the runup to the election 10 days ago, Council members overwhelmingly told voters that they favor the pay fix.

Citizens Union put the issues to candidates, incumbents and challengers alike. Of those who filled out questionnaires, here are the tallies:

- 27 members both of the current Council and of the body that will take office Jan. 1 said lawmakers should not be able to vote raises for themselves in an ongoing term. Instead, members should be limited to hiking the pay of a future Council that is seated after an election.

- Only two current Council members and three who will sit in the term that starts Jan. 1 backed the status quo of voting themselves raises and pocketing the money immediately, never mind the voters.

The two incumbents are Quinn and Councilwoman Inez Dickens of Harlem. The newcomer is Fernando Cabrera of the Bronx. Others who declined to respond to Citizens Union may stand with Quinn, Dickens and Cabrera. But no matter how many join this wrongheaded column, 27 votes is more than a majority.

So, pay reform has the support not only of every major civic group, but also of more than enough members to vote a measure into law. One thing is missing: Quinn's backing. Surely, she will not bottle up a bill that is the will of the Council.

Continuing to fight reform, as Quinn has steadfastly done, in the face of such documented evidence would be an abuse of her prerogatives. What about it, Ms. Speaker, who's in charge - you or the majority?

The matter belongs on the Council floor for a vote, along with two additional measures recommended by the commission. Those would abolish the speaker's power to dole out extra cash stipends - called lulus - to favored members and establish limits on outside income.

Both are supported by substantial blocs on the incoming Council. Among those who answered Citizens Union questionnaires, the count was 18 to 13 in favor of killing lulus and 21 to 10 in support of income limits. Quinn was in the minority in each case.

She can vote against all the reforms if she likes, as long as there is a vote.